Volume 8 Issue 2
Rapporteur
Newsletter of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law :: November 2009
ICJ Justice
and Holocaust
survivor addresses
Genocide
Inside
A human rights act for Australia?
Controversial Chinese dissident condemns China
Balibo survivor speaks out
Remembering Ron Castan
Sell-out conference a success
www.law.monash.edu.au/castancentre
Rapporteur
News
Castan Centre engages in
same sex rights debate
Two recent parliamentary inquiries provide
hope that the tide is turning in favour
of better human rights protection for
same-sex couples in Australia. Deputy
Director Dr Paula Gerber and Law Faculty
Centre Member Dr Adiva Sifris made
comprehensive submissions to both
inquiries regarding the human rights impact
of proposed changes to the relevant laws.
In its submission to the New South Wales
parliamentary inquiry into adoption by
same-sex couples, the Castan Centre
argued that homosexual couples should be
granted the same rights to adopt children
as heterosexual couples. As the law stands
in New South Wales, a non-biological
parent in a same-sex couple is not eligible
to adopt his or her partner’s biological child
while a similar partner in a heterosexual
relationship may do so. Also, homosexual
couples are not allowed to adopt a child
who is not related to them. The Centre
argued that the current legislation breaches
a number of Australia’s obligations under
the UN Convention on the Rights of the
Child, particularly the requirement that laws
protect the best interests of the child, as
well as anti-discrimination provisions in
various international human rights treaties.
It impressed upon the committee that the
Adoption Act should be amended so that
same-sex couples are eligible to adopt and
subject to the same eligibility criteria as
heterosexual couples.
A federal parliamentary inquiry into
proposed amendments to the Marriage
Act allowed Drs Gerber and Sifris to
argue in favour of a law that would allow
couples of any sex to enter into marriage.
They noted that the current marriage
laws, limiting marriage to heterosexual
couples, constitute a breach of a number
of recognised human rights, including
freedom from discrimination, the right
to privacy and the rights of children and
families. Drs Gerber and Sifris also pointed
out that the social landscape in Australia
and the world is changing rapidly in relation
to same-sex marriage and gay rights in
general, and it is about time that Australia
moved away from the ‘separate but equal’
regime currently in place, and amend
the law to grant equality to all people.
Dr Gerber noted that “many countries
around the world have reformed their laws
to ensure that all people are treated the
same, regardless of their sexual orientation.
Australia needs to embrace this movement
for change, rather than be left behind.”
The two inquiries signal that our
governments may finally be ready to
start seriously examining these areas of
entrenched discrimination. Any reform in
this area would most likely be welcomed
by the Australian public; a recent survey
indicating that 60% of people supported
same-sex marriage.
Copies of both submissions can be
found on the Centre’s website:
www.law.monash.edu.au/castancentre/
publications/submissions.html
Celebrating our 10th anniversary in 2010
When Justice Michael Kirby launched
the Castan Centre in October 2000, he
stated that the centre’s areas of focus
should include Indigenous rights and the
push for a bill of rights in particular. Nine
years on, the centre is actively involved
in the current campaign for a bill of
rights in Australia, which may come into
being as early as next year, and has just
agreed to extend its role in the Aurora
Project, which builds capacity among
the nations’ Native Title Representative
Bodies, for a further three years.
Contents
The centre was the brainchild of Sarah
Joseph and Julie Debeljak, who were then
2
2 News
6 Ten years on: remembering
Ron Castan
7 How to combat Genocide, from
a survivor of Genocide
8 Dodging her enemies, speaking
out against China
9 Sell-out conference hears wide
range of views on human rights
10 La Trobe’s fairytale win
junior human rights academics working
in the Monash Law Faculty. The untimely
passing of Ron Castan AM QC came in
October 1999 as the effort to get the centre
started was building momentum. To Sarah,
Julie and others in the faculty, Ron’s role
as lead counsel on Mabo, his tireless work
on a variety of Indigenous causes and his
broader work to further human rights in
Australia made him an authentic human
rights hero. To them, it made sense that the
centre be named after Ron.
Since its foundation, the centre has
developed expertise in the areas of
research and teaching, public education,
11 War reporting and the legacy
of Balibo
12 Confronting the desperate need
for a fair deal on trade
13 Getting a new perspective in
the Top End
Where are they now?
14 Learning about women’s rights
from grassroots organisations
15 Speaking out, and listening, at a
politicised forum
Newsletter of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law
student programs, parliamentary
engagement and capacity building. We
believe that the centre has made great
advances over the past 9 years and look
forward to celebrating our 10th year in 2010.
There will be a number of events over the
course of the year, culminating in the 10th
anniversary dinner in late 2010. Details of
the dinner will be released shortly, and we
will include a retrospective series in next
year’s newsletters.
2009 marks the 10th anniversary of Ron
Castan’s death. A memoir by Glenda
McNaught, barristers’ clerk is on page 6
of this newsletter.
16 An eyewitness to the bravery of
asylum-seekers
17 Six questions
Dissecting the commercialisation
of Indigenous land
18 Q&A
Publications and other activities by
centre faculty members
Cover photo by David Tacon
Newsletter of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law
Global Intern program expands
to five continents in 2010
(L-R) David Sztrajt, Catherine Miller, Amy Burton, David Carolan, Emily Dickson, Michael Adams, Helen Fabinyi and Jeremy Noye
The 2010 Global Internship Program will
expand to South America with the addition
of a three month placement at the Amazon
Defence Coalition (FDA), in Quito Ecuador.
Another new placement has been added
with the Centre for Constitutional Rights in
New York City.
David Sztrajt will be the first Castan
Centre Intern to work with the FDA. The
FDA works to defend the peoples and
environment of the Amazon. It is currently
involved in prosecuting Chevron Oil for the
devastating pollution of the Amazon region.
David’s interest in indigenous rights and the
environment made him a perfect fit for this
internship. He has been a volunteer at a
number of community legal centres as well
as the North Australian Aboriginal Justice
Agency, the Castan Centre and the Asylum
Seeker Resource Centre.
Michael Adams’s interest in corporate
social responsibility and human rights will
be utilised during his internship with the
Centre for Constitutional Rights in New
York City. Michael will be working on
litigation generated by its Corporate Human
Rights Abuse campaign. Michael has
been a legal research assistant conducting
research into legal philosophy and corporate
social responsibility, and volunteers with the
Australian Society of Legal Philosophy and
Amnesty International.
The former internship with the International
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
has been resurrected for a final year. David
Carolan will travel to the Netherlands in
January to work with the tribunal for a six
month stint. David undertook an in-house
internship with the Castan Centre and
has been involved in the Human Rights
Moot competition, and the International
Humanitarian Law Moot.
This year, the International Women’s Rights
Action Watch – Asia Pacific (IWRAW)
internship will include a 2 week stint in
Geneva working with IWRAW during the
45th Session of the UN Committee on
the Elimination of Discrimination Against
Women. On the eve of the session Global
Intern Emily Dickson will help IWRAW
train grassroots women’s groups from
various countries in how to lobby the
Committee. Emily’s interest in women’s
rights came from studying Sharia Law in
Malaysia. Emily has a strong commitment
to community development and has
volunteered with Embrace Education.
Jeremy Noye will also be travelling to
Geneva where he will intern with the
Australian Delegation to the UN Human
Rights Council. Jeremy has been a Student
Rights’ Advocate in the Monash Student
Association and volunteer for over two
years at the Asylum Seeker Resource
Centre. He has also worked as a student
support worker, child care worker, and
private tutor and is fluent in French.
Catherine Miller will undertake her
internship at Human Rights First in New
York. Catherine has been a volunteer at
the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre
for over 4 years and will be working
with asylum seekers in the USA. She
has also worked as a legal research
assistant and a Student Rights’ Advocate
in the Monash Student Association.
In its second year, the Monash-Oxfam
agreement will see two Castan Centre
interns, Amy Burton and Helen Fabinyi,
work with Oxfam partner organisation the
Campus Law Clinic in Durban, South Africa,
where they will provide legal services to
poor and disadvantaged communities. Amy
is actively involved at Monash and has
volunteered with a number of community
legal centres and as a teacher’s aid in Peru.
Helen has volunteered at the Asylum
Seeker Resource Centre, the Sudanese
Australian Integrated Learning Program, the
Environment Defenders Office of Victoria,
and Native Title Services Victoria. Helen also
taught English and engaged in community
development work in Rajasthan India.
Generous funding from Daniel and
Danielle Besen and the Monash Law
Faculty’s Student Mobility Fund make
the Global Internship Program possible.
November 2009
3
Rapporteur
News
Essay Competition:
young people not ‘morons’ after all
The Castan Centre congratulates Gabrielle
Sing from Woodleigh School, the winner
of its 2009 Writing for Human Rights
Essay Competition. The competition
was open to all Victorian year 11 and 12
students, who were asked to write on the
topic “‘We’re not morons’: governments
should butt out of young people’s lives.”
Students were allowed to argue either
for or against the statement and were
encouraged to refer to specific instances
of recent government intervention, such
as internet censorship and curfews.
There was a fantastic response to the
competition, highlighting how interested
today’s youth are in both human rights
and controversial public issues.
In Gabrielle’s insightful essay, she noted
that governments have traditionally limited
the rights of young people to protect
them and the whole of society. In her
essay, she discussed the balance that
must be achieved in protecting young
people and ensuring their freedoms and
liberties. She was presented with her
$1,200 prize by Castan Centre Deputy
Director, Dr Julie Debeljak and Joh Kirby,
Executive Director of the Victoria Law
Foundation during the Monash Law
School’s 2009 Great Law Week Debate.
Place-getters and recipients of special
commendation awards were also
presented with their prizes. Second prize
and $800 went to Laura Tucceri from St
Aloysius College. Laura suggested
that government restrictions
have never been as stringent
and invasive as they are today,
and restrictive laws are usually
drafted without consultation
with young people. Third prize
and $400 went to Susannah
Guthrie from St Catherine’s
School. Susannah argued
that while the government’s
influence over young people in
Australia is restrictive in some
areas, it is necessary for the
maintenance of safety and
stability in society. Certificates
of commendation for their
outstanding submissions were
awarded to Philippa Symon, also
from St Catherine’s School, Ivona
Lonac of Northcote High and Tim
Gibson of Woodleigh School.
Gabrielle Sing is presented her award by
Deputy Director Dr Julie Debeljak
The Castan Centre for
Human Rights Law School of
Excellence award and $2000 went to
St Catherine’s School in Toorak for the
overall quality of its submissions. St
Joseph’s College Melbourne placed
second in the schools prize and received
a certificate of commendation.
The judging panel was impressed by the
entrants’ ability to thoroughly explore
both the specifics and generalities of the
topic, illustrating their understanding of the
need to balance the rights of individuals
with those of society. In particular, essays
highlighted the often dichotomous need to
both protect young people and preserve
their human rights and freedoms.
The Writing for Human Rights Essay
Competition is sponsored by the Victoria
Law Foundation. The winning essays are
available on the Castan Centre website at
www.law.monash.edu.au/castancentre
2010 Essay Competition
The 2010 writing for Human Rights Essay Competition topic
will be ‘Criminals don’t deserve the same human rights as
everyone else’.
For the first time the competition will be open to students
in year 10, as well as years 11 and 12. The Centre received
several petitions last year from year 10 teachers and students
arguing that year 10 students should also be given the chance
to think critically and creatively about human rights and the law.
In line with tradition, all winners, their families and nominated
teachers will be invited to attend the Great Law Week Debate
on 19 May 2010, with prizes presented at the conclusion of
the debate. Three individual prizes up to the value of $1200
4
Newsletter of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law
are on offer and the winning essay will also be published in
Inscape, the annual publication of VCE literature. The Castan
Centre for Human Rights Law School of Excellence award
valued at $2000, will also be awarded to the winning school
based on the number and quality of submissions received.
Schools will be notified of the upcoming competition in midNovember with entries closing on 22nd March 2010. More
information will be posted on the Castan Centre for Human
Rights website in the coming weeks.
In previous years students have shown incredible insight into
the challenging topics and the Castan Centre believes the 2010
competition will see more outstanding submissions than ever.
Newsletter of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law
The People have spoken,
and want a Human Rights
Act for Australia
After 66 roundtables in 52 locations
across Australia, 35,000 submissions
and a national opinion poll, the National
Human Rights Consultation Committee
has released its report recommending a
Human Rights Act for Australia. The report
was launched by the Attorney-General,
Robert McClelland, at a Human Rights Law
Resource Centre event in early October,
and was greeted with enthusiasm by the
human rights community. The Consultation
Committee, chaired by Father Frank
Brennan, was launched on Human Rights
Day, 10 December 2008, to “initiate a
public inquiry about how best to recognise
and protect the human rights and freedoms
enjoyed by all Australians.” The Committee
has decided that while more education
is the highest priority for improving and
promoting human rights, Australia does
in fact, need a Human Rights Act.
The Committee called for a “dialogue
model” of human rights, which encourages
the courts to alert the government and
parliament to legislation that is inconsistent
with human rights. It also recommended
that the proposed act go further than the
similar acts in Victoria and the ACT by
granting individuals the rights to take legal
action against federal “public authorities”
(such as ministers, departments and
federal agencies, and private organisations
undertaking government tasks, such as
employment agencies) for breaching their
human rights. Public authorities would
be obliged to act and make decisions
in accordance with human rights.
Another innovation suggested by the
Committee was that some economic,
social and cultural rights should be included
in a Human Rights Act. The role of ESC
rights would be disappointingly more
limited, however. For example, people
alleging a breach of these rights would
not be able to take court action. They
would instead be able to complain to the
Australian Human Rights Commission.
The proposed act would empower
judges to interpret legislation compatibly
with human rights if it is possible to do
so without affecting the purpose of the
legislation. Where such an interpretation is
not possible, a judge would have to issue
a declaration that a law is incompatible
with human rights. This declaration would
not invalidate the law, but the government
would be required to respond to the
declaration in parliament and explain
whether it intended to change the law
or not. A similar provision exists under
the UK Human Rights Act, and since its
enactment, parliament has always changed
a questionable law based on a Declaration
made by the House of Lords. The United
Kingdom is bound by the decisions of the
European Court of Human Rights, which
places additional pressure on the UK
Parliament to amend rights incompatible
legislation. Australia is not subject to similar
decisions and its parliament would not
necessarily be under the same pressure.
While the recommendations have received
support from a broad range of social
groups, organisations and individuals, there
has been spirited debate in the nation’s
media, particularly in newspapers and
online. While those on both sides of the
debate are receiving air time, The Australian
newspaper is leading a concerted campaign
against a national Human Rights Act. The
paper and other opponents have attacked
the Consultation as unrepresentative,
despite the enormous number of
submissions and the clear response to
the Committee’s independent national
opinion polling (57% were in favour, and
only 14% opposed). Other common claims
are that a Human Rights Act would greatly
increase litigation despite evidence from
the UK, Victoria and the ACT showing that
this is not true, and that religious groups
would be threatened despite the fact that
an act would protect freedom of religion.
The federal government has yet to respond
to the Committee’s report but has said it
will do so before the end of the year. It is
assumed, therefore, that the government
will make clear whether or not it intends to
pass a Human Rights Act before Christmas.
Over the coming weeks, both sides of the
debate will engage in furious lobbying of
the government. The battle is far from over.
The Castan Centre submission to
the Committee, and a separate
submission by Dr Julie Debeljak, are
available at www.law.monash.edu.au/
castancentre/publications/submissions
Castan Centre Deputy Director’s new book on
global economics and human rights
International human rights law was
originally designed to protect the
inherent dignity of every human
being from abuse by governments.
But in an age of a global economy,
where international institutions
and multinational corporations
operate on a global scale, beyond
the reach of any one State, what
is the role of human rights law?
When individuals are killed,
enslaved or tortured, when they
are evicted from their homes or
poisoned in the name of commerce
or economic development,
rather than at the hands of an
oppressive government, can
international human rights law
still deliver accountability?
Deputy Director Adam McBeth’s
first book, International Economic
Actors and Human Rights,
recently released, addresses
these questions. The book
looks at the effect international
economic actors can have on
human rights and analyses how
human rights law should address
the impact these organisations
have. The book analyses three
different kinds of international
economic actors, the World
Trade Organization, international
financial institutions (such as the
World Bank and the IMF), and
multinational corporations. Through
his analysis, Dr McBeth shows
the reader that while international
human rights law could be
interpreted to apply to these actors,
changes to the way they operate
and the current accountability
mechanisms are needed. This
book is a culmination of the
research conducted for his PhD.
November 2009
5
Rapporteur
Ten years on:
remembering Ron Castan
By Glenda McNaught
Ron Castan signed the Roll of Counsel of the Victorian Bar in
1966. It was there that I first came in contact with him in June
1974 on commencement of my employment as secretary to
Bill Gillard and Tim Smith, with whom Ron shared chambers.
In approximately 1977, on the resignation of his secretary, Ron
joined the group and thus commenced a more than 20 year
association, first as his secretary, and from 1991 as his Clerk.
The matters in which Ron was involved ranged from tax matters,
Aboriginal land rights, Constitutional law, and all areas of commercial
law to issues of human rights and civil liberties. His involvement
in land rights issues was not confined to litigation, but included
negotiations with mining companies and Commonwealth Ministers
and their departments. The warmth of his personality, intellect and
commitment to his clients, earned the respect of those involved,
proving invaluable in negotiating successful outcomes.
Ron saw the proposed introduction of an “Australia Card”
as a serious threat to the privacy and civil liberties of every
Australian citizen. His commitment to this issue was such
that for the 6 weeks preceding the vote on the proposal, he
devoted all his energies to its opposition. Ron made numerous
appearances on radio and television, (including an edition of
4 Corners on the ABC), wrote opinion pieces and organized
full page advertisements in local and national newspapers
supported by prominent members of the community.
This issue coincided with the demise in all but name, of the Victorian
Council for Civil Liberties. Needing an appropriate vehicle for
opposing the Australia Card, Ron successfully revived the VCCL.
Since that time, it has become a well-respected organization under
its new identity “Liberty Victoria”. His ability to explain complex
issues clearly and simply was a gift used to great effect in that
instance. Ron’s participation in the debate, undoubtedly contributed
to the ultimate defeat of this proposal.
The issue of human rights was a matter central to Ron’s beliefs,
and as a member of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission, sat regularly as a Commissioner. At a Melbourne
sitting, the Commission was subjected to a bomb threat. The police
were called and the building cleared. Undeterred, Ron resumed the
hearing in the street, recorded by television crews and broadcast on
the evening news.
Ron is best known for his role in the Mabo litigation. It was
extraordinary in many respects, running for 10 years from issue
of the Statement of Claim to final decision before the High Court,
testing the patience, resilience and commitment of all concerned.
Without Ron’s intellectual vigour, personal and professional
commitment, it is unlikely to have been brought to a successful
conclusion. For some 8 of the 10 years of this litigation, the matter
proceeded without the assistance of an instructing solicitor. Under
those circumstances, Ron relocated his daughter Melissa (who
had completed 1 year of her law degree) and her now husband, to
Brisbane for several months to assist his junior, Bryan Keon-Cohen,
during the hearings in the Supreme Court of Queensland.
Constitutional law was an area Ron found particularly interesting
and intellectually stimulating, as evidenced by his numerous
appearances before the High Court. The Hawke Government’s
decision to invite him to be part of the Constitutional Commission
6
Newsletter of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law
proved an inspired choice and an opportunity he greatly enjoyed.
The group of which he was part included Tom Keneally and Peter
Garrett; indeed, Tom Keneally and Ron were responsible for writing
the report concerning Individual and Democratic Rights. More than
20 years later, this report has proved invaluable for lawyers engaged
in preparing a submission on behalf of the International Commission
of Jurists to the current National Human Rights Consultation,
relating to a proposed Australian Bill of Rights.
Life in Ron’s chambers was always interesting, stimulating and great
fun. His sense of humour was never far from the surface and the
banter with fellow practitioners highly amusing and without malice.
Ron’s interests ranged far beyond the law – in particular to art and
music. He had a passion for bike riding, and was proud of his record
of participation in the first, and many subsequent, Great Victorian
Bike Rides. He rode to chambers when opportunity allowed, and
could be seen around the streets of Kew on weekends riding his
recumbent. Bike magazines regularly took precedence over all other
items of mail!
Ron was an extraordinary human being. His strong moral compass
led him to pursue issues that were seen by many as a “lost cause”.
He acted according to his conscience, devoid of ego and, in some
cases, despite strong opposition. The respect afforded him by
the bench of the High Court during his numerous appearances,
reflected that demonstrated by the profession generally and the
wider community.
As a student from a one-teacher primary school of 36 pupils in Yuna,
(50 miles north-east of Geraldton), I wonder at my good fortune in
knowing this extraordinary person so well. Without question, the
years spent working with Ron and enjoying his friendship, were the
most enriching and influential of my life.
After 10 years, I, along with Ron’s wife Nellie, their three
children and their families and Ron’s many colleagues
and friends, continue to feel his untimely passing keenly.
Equally, we share a great sense of gratitude in having
come under his influence and enjoyed his friendship.
Glenda McNaught is a Barristers’ Clerk based at Owen Dixon
Chambers in Melbourne. She and Melissa Castan have
recently established, the ‘Ron Castan Education Fund’ at the
Melbourne Community Foundation. Please contact Glenda if
you with to make a contribution.
How to combat Genocide,
from a survivor of Genocide
By Emily Moskovitch
Criminal Court in 2002. According to Buergenthal, the UN Charter
and 1948’s Universal Declaration on Human Rights were the
catalysts for the slow creation of an international human rights
culture, which in turn led to the international community shunning
pariah states and pursuing the perpetrators of grave atrocities,
particularly through international tribunals and courts. Buergenthal
believes that tribunals can have a deterrent effect, not only because
alleged perpetrators are eventually put on trial, but also because the
issuing of indictments prevents them from travelling abroad freely,
for fear of arrest: they are prisoners even when they are free.
Buergenthal also credited the European, US and African regional
human rights courts and tribunals with creating culture-specific
human rights institutions which socialise governments into
compliance with international human rights obligations and “give
hope that human rights protection will be possible”. In answer to
a question from the audience, Buergenthal confirmed his strong
support for a similar mechanism for the Asia-Pacific.
Thomas Buergenthal
The road from childhood Holocaust survivor to eminent
international human rights jurist may not be a common one,
but for Justice Thomas Buergenthal of the International Court
of Justice, it just made sense. While delivering the Castan
Centre’s 2009 Annual Lecture as part of the Melbourne Writers
Festival, Justice Buergenthal said “if you yourself have been a
victim of human rights violations, then you have a much better
appreciation of what it is like to be a victim”.
Buergenthal delivered the Annual Lecture while visiting
Melbourne in August to promote his book, A Lucky Child, about
his experiences in labour and concentration camps during World
War II. Buergenthal was one of three children to survive the death
march from Auschwitz at the end of the war, and the title of his
book refers to his father’s comment that he was lucky to get into
Auschwitz: most children were killed before arriving at the camp
because they were not able to work.
Buergenthal did acknowledge that the world should not be
fooled into thinking that the current system is fully protective and
well-functioning. Although it has saved lives and increased the
pressure on governments to take their obligations more seriously,
Buergenthal strongly believes we still live in a “world-wide
movement of human beings yearning to be treated with dignity”.
On a more personal note, Buergenthal described the difficulty
he has experienced in bending the perception that victims of
human rights violations apply the law in a manner whereby the
“victim always wins”. Buergenthal depicted judicial impartiality
as a primary aspect of any judicial office but confirmed that not
all victims of gross violations could or should be asked to recuse
themselves on this basis alone. In his book Buergenthal comments
on his childhood experiences saying they “equipped me to be a
better human rights lawyer, if only because I understood, not only
intellectually but also emotionally, what it is like to be a victim…I
could, after all, feel it in my bones”. On the night, Buergenthal
demonstrated to the audience of more than 500 that he possesses
the necessary mix of empathy and impartiality.
The Castan Centre 2009 Annual Lecture was sponsored by
Holding Redlich as part of the Melbourne Writers Festival.
After the war, Buergenthal was reunited with his mother (his father
did not survive Auschwitz), and lived with her in Germany where he
attended school alongside many children whose fathers had been
Nazis. As a teenager he moved to the United States, where he
excelled in law at Harvard and began his rapid rise from academic
to human rights expert. Before he was appointed to the ICJ,
Buergenthal was a judge on the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights, a member of the UN Truth Commission for El Salvador and
a member of the UN Human Rights Committee.
In his lecture, Buergenthal grappled with the issue of how the
world should respond to Genocide. As one would expect, he
focussed strongly on the deterrent potential of international human
rights law, calling it a “history in progress”. Buergenthal drew a
direct line from the foundation of the UN in 1945, through the ad
hoc criminal tribunals such as the International Criminal Tribunal
for the former Yugoslavia, to the establishment of the International
November 2009
7
Rapporteur
Dodging her enemies,
speaking out against China
By Neda Monshat
Rebiya Kadeer animatedly discusses the plight of the Uighur peoples in China
Labelled a terrorist, a separatist, and an extremist by her own
government, exiled Uighur leader Rebiya Kadeer received
a warm welcome from a packed house at a recent Castan
Centre event in Melbourne. Speaking on the struggle of
the Uighur people in China’s Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous
Region, Ms Kadeer gave her lecture amidst strong calls from
Chinese government representatives in Australia to ban a
documentary on her life which screened at the 2009 Melbourne
International Film Festival (MIFF). The 10 Conditions of Love
is a film about Ms Kadeer’s relationship with her exiled
husband, also an activist for Uighur rights, and the impact of
her political struggle on her family – specifically, three of her
eleven children who have received jail sentences in China. The
Cultural Attaché at the Chinese Consulate in Melbourne made
a direct call to MIFF director, Richard Moore, demanding that
the film be withdrawn and further rebuked him for allowing
Ms Kadeer to appear at the festival. When Mr Moore refused to
withdraw the film from MIFF, a host of internet users in China
hacked into the festival’s website causing massive disruptions
to online ticket sales and the website’s general utility.
Unfortunately, China’s intense reaction to her dissent is familiar
territory for Ms Kadeer. Having served a five year prison term for
sending newspaper clippings to her husband overseas, Ms Kadeer
has lived in exile in the United States since her release from jail
in 2005. This year, the Chinese government has accused her of
bringing about the July ethnic clashes that occurred in Xinjiang’s
capital Urumqi which led to almost 200 dead and over 1,700
injured. However, as a Nobel Peace Prize nominee and leader of
the World Uighur Congress, Ms Kadeer stressed that hers was a
peaceful, non-separatist movement seeking realisation of the rights
of Chinese Uighurs which the Chinese government themselves
had promised.
Since 1949 Xinjiang has been one of five autonomous regions
in China, meaning that it has the right to self determination and
self-government under Chinese law. Uighurs have the right, in
theory to live freely, in touch with their cultural, religious, and
linguistic diversity. However, in her address, Ms Kadeer described
the Chinese government repression of Uighurs since the terrorist
attacks of 11 September 2001, labelling it ‘cultural genocide’. She
8
Newsletter of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law
spoke of the Chinese government using the September 11 attacks
as a ruse to label the mostly Sunni Muslim Uighurs as terrorists,
providing a pretext for intense and systematic discrimination
against them.
However, according to Ms Kadeer, such discrimination has been
going on for much longer than just the last 8 years. She told of
witnessing the 1997 ‘Gulja Massacre’ in which hundreds, possibly
thousands of Uighurs peacefully protesting the growing repression
of Uighur culture were killed in Xinjiang. Ms Kadeer lamented the
massacre as ‘nothing short of another Tiananmen Square’. Ms
Kadeer also told of the 2001 forced transfers of young Uighur
people to Chinese schools for cultural indoctrination and the 2003
‘Bi-lingual Language Policy’ introduced by the Chinese authorities.
This was really an invasive imposition of the Chinese language,
she said, in an attempt to destroy the Uighur language. The policy
led to the dismissal of various Uighur teachers and professors
unable to teach in Chinese, who now work as unskilled labourers
due to dramatically reduced job opportunities for Uighur people.
Ms Kadeer also talked of the 2006 policy forcing rural Uighur
women to work in sweatshops against their will. In addition, many
Uighur farmers have had their land repossessed by the ‘Xinjiang
Construction Company’ and subsequently been forced to work
as cheap labour in Chinese speaking eastern China. Ms Kadeer
pointed this out as another attempt by the Chinese government to
dilute Uighur culture and language.
Regrettably, the list of offences goes on: the Chinese government
has labelled the Uighur ‘barbaric peoples’, and have charged
approximately 15,000 Uighur peoples with terrorism and
separatism related offences. At the end of her lecture, Ms
Kadeer returned to the Chinese accusations that she was the
instigator of the July violence in Xinjiang. She claimed that the
Chinese authorities randomly opened fire on Uighur people after
nightfall, and then “disappeared” hundreds of protesters in the
weeks following. Continuing her ceaseless commitment to the
peaceful struggle for her peoples, it seems that Ms Kadeer’s most
immediate goal now is exposing the truth behind the 2009 protests
- protests in which almost 200 Uighur people died holding up
Chinese flags, asking for their rights as Chinese citizens.
Sell-out conference hears wide
range of views on human rights
By Neda Monshat
A sell-out crowd of over 200 was on hand to hear
Commonwealth Attorney-General, The Hon. Robert McClelland,
open the 2009 Castan Centre Annual Conference. As the
National Human Rights Consultation was still underway at the
time, the Attorney-General shied away from discussing the
need for a Human Rights Act, but that did not stop the audience
from trying to glean hints from his speech, particularly when he
discussed the lack of comprehensive human rights protection in
the common law.
Attorney-General Robert McClelland speaks,
with Dr Julie Debeljak at far left.
Where the Attorney-General tiptoed around the issue of a Human
Rights Act, Dr Ben Saul, Director of the Sydney Centre for
International Law at the University of Sydney, claimed that Australia
needs something stronger than the “dialogue model” adopted
in Victoria, the UK and elsewhere. Dr Saul criticised the Victorian
Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities (“Charter”) “under
which there are no new causes of action, no remedial rights to
compensation, and no power of judges to declare legislation
inoperative where it is inconsistent with human rights”.
Human Rights Act, Victorian lawyers are generally unfamiliar with
the scope and application of the Charter.
After lunch, the Hon. Robert Hill, former Australian Ambassador and
Permanent Representative to the United Nations, and Professor
Hilary Charlesworth, Director of the Centre for International
Governance and Justice at the Australian National University,
discussed the level of international engagement under the Howard
and Rudd governments. Mr Hill stated that while Mr Rudd
presents a public image as an ‘active participant in a multinational
system’, in substance his approach to international human rights
has been similar to Mr Howard’s. As evidence, Mr Hill discussed
the recent Concluding Observations on Australia from the UN
Human Rights Committee, which praised the Rudd government
for its ‘constructive dialogue’, while stating that it ‘did not see
a great deal of change in substance’. Professor Charlesworth
often agreed with Mr Hill, and pointed out that while some of the
Howard government’s interactions with the UN had bordered
on the offensive, other interactions – such as its support for the
International Criminal Court – were very positive.
The final session focussed on human rights from an international
perspective. Professor Chris Sidoti, the former Australian Human
Rights Commissioner, offered an interesting, though somewhat
downbeat, analysis of the success of the UN Human Rights Council
so far. Pointing to ‘the domination of the Council by hardline states
and their accomplices’, he lamented that the Council was at risk of
becoming ‘as discredited as its predecessor’. He was, however,
optimistic about the allowance for dissenting reports under the
Universal Periodic Review, and the use of secret ballots. Castan
Centre Director Professor Sarah Joseph, finished the conference
by summarising three major recent cases on the human rights
compatibility of measures taken to implement Security Council antiterrorism resolutions, democratic rights in Fiji, and gay rights in India.
Throughout the day, the interaction between speakers and
delegates, and the buzz in between sessions, were indicative of a
stimulating, exciting day.
The Castan Centre Annual Conference will take place
in July 2010.
In the day’s second session, The Hon. Justice Chris Maxwell,
President of the Victoria Court of Appeal, and barrister Alistair Pound
gave an update on the Charter. Justice Maxell weighed into the
issue of judicial activism, stating that judges had been successfully
interpreting legislation and precedent for centuries and were unlikely
to suddenly discard judicial restraint because of statutory human
rights protection. For this reason, according to Justice Maxwell, the
Charter had not been the lawyers’ feast some had predicted.
Mr Pound, co-author of An Annotated Guide to the Victorian Charter
of Human Rights and Responsibilities, gave four more reasons for
the absence of the predicted “flood” of Charter-related litigation.
First, the Charter has only been in force for 18 months. Second, in
many cases where Charter issues would have arisen, disputes have
been settled before the matter had a chance to get to trial. Third, the
Charter does not in and of itself create new causes of action. Finally,
unlike the UK, where lawyers had been exposed to the European
Court of Human Rights for 30 years prior to the enactment of its
Professor Hilary Charlesworth
November 2009
9
Rapporteur
La Trobe’s fairytale win
It was two weeks before the start of the third annual Castan
Centre Charter of Rights Mooting Competition. Things were
progressing as normal when news came through that one
university would only able to field a single team instead of two,
leaving the competition one team short.
Rather than leaving the competition with an odd number of teams,
the Castan Centre sent the call out to the three other Universities
to see if they could possibly field a third team. Little did we
know the interest from students at those universities would be
overwhelming and all three were more than happy to provide an
additional team. Thus, the La Trobe 3 team was created a mere ten
days before the start of the competition. The team did not know,
however, that it would have to overcome one more challenge
before it could start its run to the grand final.
Disaster struck on the morning of the first preliminary round. At 9
am, La Trobe 3 informed the Castan Centre that two of its three
team members were sick and would be unable to participate in
the evening’s competition. Rather than concede and pull out, they
requested permission to ask another student to join the team at the
last minute and moot with the remaining healthy competitor in the
evening’s preliminary round. Their request was approved, yet with
only 8 hours for the newest member to prepare his arguments and
learn the relevant material, things were looking dim for the team.
The preliminary rounds went off without a hitch, with students
arguing the human rights of a group protesting the dredging of
Port Philip Bay. After two rounds of well reasoned debate and
tough questioning from the seasoned bench of Clayton Utz (the
competition’s sponsors) solicitors, the four teams to progress to the
Semi Final were Melbourne University 1, Melbourne University 2,
La Trobe University 1 and La Trobe University 3, the team that only
a few days earlier had entered the competition shorthanded. Thus
the stage was set for a Melbourne University v La Trobe University
faceoff in both Semi Final moots.
In the Semi Final round, both La Trobe teams were victorious
Mark Basile, of La Trobe 3, speaks while Daniel Diaz prepares.
10
Newsletter of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law
in arguing the case of their client, a young Indigenous offender
who wanted to be treated the same as other youth offenders.
At issue was whether the young offender had the right to
choose whether or not his sentencing hearing would be heard
before the recently created Children’s Koori Court of Victoria,
and whether the Magistrate failed to take his human rights
into consideration when he ignored the youth’s request on the
issue. This raised a number of Charter issues, but specifically
the question of whether Judges must take all human rights
in the Charter into consideration when making decisions.
Barristers Chris Young, Brendan Loizou and Simon Moglia
Joined Clayton Utz partners to judge the Semi Final moots.
The 2010 Grand Final was the first Grand Final any La Trobe
team had reached in the moot. La Trobe 1 argued the case of
the appellant, a young woman who was seeking admission to
become a lawyer in Victoria, but who felt that having to disclose
any mental illness she has had in the past, a disclosure required
by the Board of Legal Examiners before it would support her
nomination for admission, would breach her human rights.
This issue was highly topical given the students mooting
would one day be required to disclose similar information
should they decide to become admitted as lawyers.
Justice Chris Maxwell, President of the Court of Appeal, Judge
Anthony Howard of the County Court, both veteran judges of the
moot competition, and Padma Raman, CEO of the Victorian Law
Reform Commission, new to the moot, judged the exciting end of
a great competition of mooting before a packed house in the Court
of Appeal. Having overcome some major hurdles, it was a fitting
end to their fairytale run that La Trobe 3, made up of Mark Basile,
Aimee Chadzynski and Daniel Diaz, proved victorious, taking home
the $3000 grand prize. They join past winners Monash University
and Melbourne University as winners of the competition.
The Castan Centre Charter of Rights Mooting Competition is
sponsored by Clayton Utz.
Newsletter of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law
War reporting and the
legacy of Balibo
By Erica Contini
“War is everywhere and ongoing”, journalist and author Tony
Maniaty declared as he discussed the intersection of war
and journalism at a Castan Centre public lecture in October.
Maniaty is a former war reporter who had been covering the
nascent war in East Timor when the Australian journalists
who became known as the “Balibo Five” were killed in 1975.
Maniaty released the book Shooting Balibo about the incident
in June of this year and was a consultant on the recent movie
Balibo. During his public lecture, Maniaty weaved stories from
his own experience into his exploration of the legal protections
for war reporters.
can offer a powerful deterrent to senior officers by putting them
on notice that their actions are under international scrutiny.
War reporting is more dangerous now, according to Maniaty, on
account of two related influences: on one hand, it is often hard to
visually distinguish journalists from soldiers due to the protective
clothing both groups wear, and on the other hand journalists are no
longer seen as neutral observers but as “an active component in
the process of modern war” who can influence military strategies,
as occurred in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Maniaty conceded that
journalists are now deeply entrenched in the war machine as they
tend to provide war coverage from one perspective alone…the
Left: Tony Maniaty on the cover of his new book
Maniaty argued that journalists need to better know and understand
the laws of war, often referred to as International Humanitarian
Law (IHL). IHL provides protection for journalists during armed
conflicts by treating them the same way as civilians, and Maniaty
commented that he would have benefited from knowing the
laws (or at least having heard about them) when he was reporting
from East Timor. In addition to providing the basic rules for legal
protection of journalists, Maniaty stated that IHL is important
because “it also lets them know what is legally permissible in their
role as media representatives and also what - legally - combatants
can do about the presence of journalists and what they cannot.”
In East Timor, some of Maniaty’s television colleagues reported
on how they had conveyed information of a military nature from
one group of Fretilin forces to another, clearly breaching their
obligation under IHL to remain neutral and impartial observers.
Knowledge of IHL is not just a matter of survival, but also, according
to Maniaty, a way of furthering the cause of justice. As witnesses
to violations of IHL, war correspondents can quickly and accurately
tell the world what is happening and document violations, thereby
encouraging later prosecution of offenders. Furthermore, while
invoking IHL and the rule of law may not deter young soldiers, it
Above: Tony Maniaty during his lecture
more embedded journalists become, the harder it is for them to
maintain their status as civilians.
In the very complex environment of modern warfare, Maniaty still
sees an important role for IHL. He noted the role it has played
in providing justice to the families of victims of war crimes, citing
the current Australian investigation into the deaths of the Balibo
Five. He argued that the weakness of IHL is not its sometimes
outmoded laws, but rather the need for the political will to ensure
“vigorous implementation of the rules, and systemic investigation,
prosecution and sanction of violations [of IHL].”
Maniaty closed the lecture by highlighting the continuing importance
of having journalists in war zones and the need for stronger
enforcement of IHL. He stated that, to generate greater acceptance
of IHL, society needs “to stop viewing and presenting war as
a heroic enterprise, and see it for what it fundamentally is – an
inhuman, horrific and desperate act by people devoid of imagination,
for whom brute force is not the last resort but usually the first.”
Tony Maniaty’s paper can be found online at:
www.law.monash.edu.au/castancentre
November 2009
11
Rapporteur
Confronting the desperate need
for a fair deal on trade
By Angus McLeod
flesh in exchange for market liberalisation.
While there have been some significant
achievements in the round, in particular
the reform of intellectual property laws and
the availability of HIV/AIDS medication, the
entire process has been in jeopardy since
July 2008 when an impasse between major
developing countries – China, India and
Brazil - and developed countries - particularly
America, the European Union and Australia
- developed over the issue of agricultural
subsidies and tariffs.
Frank Garcia addresses the audience in his March lecture
American Professor Frank Garcia recently claimed that global
trade policy and global justice are not the incompatible
concepts that many claim, and that the world must not walk
away from its commitment to use trade to create greater
fairness for all.
Professor Garcia, an academic at Boston College Law Faculty,
focussed in his speech on the current “Doha Round” of the World
Trade Organisation’s trade negotiations, on which he has worked
as a consultant for the Caribbean Regional Negotiating Machinery.
He stressed that, in the context of the current economic crisis,
a failure to conclude the Doha Round would, in the words of the
WTO deputy director general, be ‘immoral.’ Professor Garcia cited
a recent World Bank study to the effect that hundreds of thousands
of poverty-related deaths may flow from the contraction of the
global economy, deaths that Doha could help alleviate.
Professor Garcia wove his discussion of justice into an assessment
of the current state of Doha negotiations. It is generally accepted
that the Uruguay Round – which directly preceded the Doha Round
and saw the transition from the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade to the WTO – was a bad bargain for developing countries.
Their lack of bargaining power led them to accept heavy restrictions
on their trade rights and to allow developed nations to wiggle out
of their promises. After the Uruguay Round, the Doha Round was
launched in a spirit of justice. Developed countries were not to
use their superior economic positions to demand their pound of
12
Newsletter of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law
Professor Garcia stressed that even if an
agreement comes out of the Doha Round, it
will probably protect developed nations’ right
to protect domestic industries. However,
despite its current flaws, he argued that
Doha could be a crucial insurance policy
against protectionism and more broadly
serve as the groundwork for a new system
of global regulation and support of the sort
that is currently being debated by the G20.
According to Professor Garcia, Doha is the
equivalent of a global ‘stimulus package’,
and would result in hundreds of billions of
dollars a year in increased trade revenues.
He called for a re-commitment to the
negotiations, a halt in the creeping rise of
tariffs and a return to the spirit of justice
invoked when the Doha Round began.
During the questions from the audience,
the argument was made that Doha is
just a distraction because it is not discussing the major issues
of sustainable development, energy policy and the problem of
exchange rates and undervalued currencies. Professor Garcia
agreed that there were a number of important issues that Doha
left out, however he reiterated the beneficial effect of Doha on the
global economy and in relieving world poverty. Furthermore Doha
has already made a number of achievements and is relatively near
completion; why waste over eight years of work?
Professor Garcia ended his talk by responding to an audience
member’s doubts about the ability for both developing and
developed countries to come to the negotiating table in a spirit
of fairness and cooperation given the dire economic times. He
conceded that the road ahead was unclear, but his rejoinder was to
reiterate that the very nature of the global credit crisis meant that
Doha could benefit both developing and developed countries and
that there is a growing awareness of the significant implications
of Doha for global justice. Professor Garcia ended as he began,
exhorting his audience to maintain hope that Doha could still
achieve both economically sound and morally principled results.
Professor Garcia is currently Vice-Chair of the ASIL
International Legal Theory Interest Group and an active
member of the International Economic Law Group. He
recently taught the Monash JD subject ‘Globalization and
international economic law’.
Newsletter of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law
Getting a new perspective
in the Top End
By Romy Grace
Since leaving school I have been eager to learn about and
engage with Aboriginal communities. During the past few
years I have taken an interest in government policy affecting
Aboriginal communities and have participated in various
community engagement and work experience programs
throughout Australia. The opportunity to undertake an Aurora
internship at the Northern Land Council (NLC) was therefore
invaluable as it enabled me to combine my interest in
Aboriginal land rights with my paralegal skills in a dynamic and
interesting organization.
Prior to arriving in Darwin, I was told to have no expectations, but the
internship didn’t disappoint – the work was extremely diverse and
kept me engaged and busy. During the internship I worked on a land
claim, a native title claim, a lease agreement, a tourism development
scheme and a mining license agreement.
A highlight of the internship was the opportunity to travel (on tiny
planes) to remote communities in the Northern Territory such as
Croker Island on the Coburg Peninsula and Yarralin.
Life in Darwin was fantastic and I loved the laid back outdoor culture.
I spent my weekends at the Asian food markets, visiting galleries,
walking and riding through the national park and at the local yoga
school. Living with two local criminal lawyers in a ‘troppo’ style
house was heaps of fun. It took a while to adapt to all the wildlife
but two months later, I was happily showering with green tree frogs,
watching the food scraps ‘decompose’ within hours, and falling
asleep to the buzz of mosquitoes and other mysterious flying insects.
Working for Aboriginal communities and dealing with the
government on land rights issues can be extremely frustrating.
Added to this is the complexity of legislation, the remoteness of
many clients and the delays in achieving results. Notwithstanding
the many challenges, the legal and non-legal staff at the NLC believe
Romy Grace out and about
in what they do, and do their best to satisfy their clients’ wishes.
The cultural sensitivity and understanding demonstrated by the NLC
lawyers when dealing with clients was very impressive. A particular
example of this occurred in a remote town, during a ‘client interview’.
We had flown down in order to get instructions from a client
regarding a land claim. The client couldn’t read or write in English
and was very elderly. The meeting took place under the trees, in
the dirt, with feral dogs roaming around, and lots of children eager
to sit in. The NLC lawyer worked with the anthropologist in order to
get the most accurate instructions from the client and their family.
My experience working at the NLC has definitely altered my legal
career aspirations for the better and I hope to return to the Northern
Land Council in the near future as a practising lawyer. I would
recommend doing an Aurora Internship to all law students interested
in learning more about the land/native rights of Aboriginal Australians
and the complex legal system in which these rights operate.
Where are they now ?
After graduating from Monash with an
Arts/Law degree Katie joined the Castan
Centre as its first Project Officer. In this
role Katie worked on a variety of projects
including human rights training programs,
submissions to parliamentary inquiries
and Castan Centre publications, including
Seeking Remedies for Torture Victims: A
Handbook on the Individual Complaints
Procedures of the UN Treaty Bodies
(OMCT, Geneva), which she authored with
Professor Sarah Joseph and Linda Gyorki.
Katie left the Centre to travel, live and study
in Spain and returned to Melbourne last
year. She is currently completing postgraduate studies at the Victorian College
of the Arts in documentary filmmaking.
Her recent short film is a portrait of Vickie
Lee Roach, an Indigenous activist who
took the Howard Government to the High
Court of Australia in 2007 to challenge
the constitutionality of legislation which
removed the right to vote in federal
elections from all sentenced prisoners.
Vickie was a prisoner at the Dame Phyllis
Frost Centre at the time of the case, taking
it on with the assistance of an outstanding
legal team including Ron Merkel QC and
Phil Lynch from the Human Rights Law
Resource Centre. The documentary will be
screened at the Australian Centre for the
Moving Image in December this year.
Katie Mitchell
When Katie is not making films she is
watching them in her role as Programming
Manager for the Human Rights and Arts
Film Festival (HRAFF). HRAFF aims to
explore, interrogate and reflect on the
concept of human rights through art and
film, inviting the audience to engage with
human rights issues through a variety
of mediums and perspectives. The third
iteration of the festival will kick off in
Melbourne on 30 April 2010 and promises
to be an exciting, challenging and inspiring
ten days of art and cinema.
For more information on HRAFF please
visit www.hraff.org.au
November 2009
13
Rapporteur
Global Interns
Learning about women’s rights from
grassroots organisations
By Carly Price
Throughout the three months that I spent with International
Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific (IWRAW-AP), I
was privileged to meet many passionate people working in
international human rights, from the committee members of
UN human rights treaty bodies, to female lawyers of Southern
Asia, and most importantly the women from grass roots
organisations around the world who are advocating for the
advancement of women’s rights in their home countries.
IWRAW-AP uses international human rights law, specifically the
UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women (CEDAW) to educate law enforcement officials and
women’s groups about women’s rights.
When I arrived at IWRAW-AP in Kuala Lumpur, I was thrown
into the middle of an Expert General Meeting (EGM). The EGM
invited female lawyers and women’s rights activists from various
parts of Southeast and South Asia to consult on the obstacles
that are faced by lawyers when using CEDAW in domestic
litigation. The outcome of the EGM was to create a set of
briefing papers that will address these obstacles and provide
strategies for lawyers to overcome these challenges in their own
litigation. Being able to act as rapporteur for IWRAW-AP during
this EGM was a very rewarding experience. The shared stories
of women from Nepal who are helping to rebuild the entire
legal system, and of women from Pakistan who are fighting
domestic violence in the absence of any legislation, enabled me
to identify some of the practical and political constraints that
impact on the course of justice for women in these countries.
The highlight of my trip, however, came about in my role as
rapporteur for IWRAW-AP in its “Global to Local Programme”
that coincided with the 43rd session of the CEDAW Committee
in Geneva, Switzerland. The Global to Local Programme brings
together women’s rights NGOs from each of the countries required
to submit a report at that session of CEDAW. The four day training
course educates participants on CEDAW and the UN system
Carly Price listens in on
the CEDAW session.
14
Newsletter of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law
generally, and provides practical training for lobbying the CEDAW
Committee. This lobbying allows the NGOs to report on the reality
of the situation in their home country and to identify the key issues
limiting the realisation of women’s rights.
As well as providing training for the participating NGOs, my role
in Geneva involved liaising with CEDAW Committee members
and holding a briefing on women in armed conflict, with the
aim of encouraging the CEDAW Committee to issue a General
Recommendation on the topic. At the briefing, women from
Guatemala shared the horrific experiences of women who became
weapons of war and victims of hate murders during the periods of
civil conflict. These female victims and their families still have no
recourse to justice for the crimes committed against them. While it
is unclear how immediately the CEDAW Committee will attend to a
General Recommendation on women affected by armed conflict, it
has been marked as an area to revisit in the future.
Being able to participate in this process, and work so closely with
women from Rwanda, Haiti, Cameroon, Dominica, Guatemala
and Armenia was a privilege and a profound learning experience.
I was inspired by the women who risked persecution back home
to attend the Session. I was intrigued when the women of Haiti
would not acknowledge that there had been conflict in their country
and pondered the contextual reasons for this. Additionally, I was
humbled by the women who came to Geneva, with little if any prior
knowledge of CEDAW, but who came to bring the stories of their
sisters back home. The work of IWRAW-AP in this process had a
significant impact on me and alerted me to the high level of civil
society participation in this treaty body process.
I would like to express my sincerest gratitude to the Monash Law
School and to the Castan Centre for their support, generosity and
encouragement. This is a truly unique experience and highlights
the absolute commitment of Monash to the learning and personal
development of its students. I will be forever grateful for having had
this opportunity.
Newsletter of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law
Speaking out, and listening,
at a politicised forum
By Marianna Linnik
One meeting that sticks out
in my memory was a panel
of speakers that discussed
forced disappearances in South
America and the possibility of
using forensic science to find
and identify the bodies of the
victims. One of the speakers
was an elderly lady, who
represented the organisation
of grandmothers that were
looking for their grandchildren,
who had been disappeared by
various regimes. The passionate
stories told by this woman and
her relentless search for her
disappeared grandson brought
tears to my eyes.
Of course, the Human Rights
Council is not without its
Marianna Linnik represents Australia before the UN Human Rights Council
problems. Throughout the
internship, the strengths
and weaknesses of multiI was very fortunate to attend the tenth session of the Human
lateral forums, and the Human Rights Council in particular, were
Rights Council at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland.
brought to my attention. This was highlighted by the Universal
I was one of two interns at the Australian delegation and I was
Periodic Review (UPR). The UPR is a process by which the human
supervised by Australian diplomats from the Australian Mission
rights situation in every country is reviewed by other states and
in Geneva. It truly was one of the most interesting experiences
by civil society. Over a number of years, every state is given the
of my life.
opportunity to present a report and other countries and NGOs
Prior to the internship, I was extremely interested in the UN and its
may make comments and recommendations regarding the
role in protecting and promoting human rights around the world.
report and the general state of human rights in that country. At
However, I knew very little about what this actually entailed. I am
the session that I attended 16 countries were reviewed. It was
very grateful to the Castan Centre for the opportunity to participate in
clear from the outset that the process was very political and that
this initiative and to get hands-on experience in this field.
despite a country’s actual conduct in relation to human rights, it
As an intern at the Australian delegation, I attended the plenary
was often praised by its peers and criticised by its enemies. It was
session of the Council and many side meeting and events. At
difficult to escape politics throughout the duration of the Council
these sessions, I drafted reports which were used to inform the
and, even though this was disheartening, overall I still believe
Department of Foreign Affairs in Canberra on what was occurring
that the UN and large multi-lateral meetings have a role to play
at the Council. I was also very fortunate to deliver Australia’s
in promoting and protecting human rights around the world.
statements on a number of human rights issues during various
debates. Furthermore, I was given the opportunity to lobby
delegates from other countries to support a resolution on torture.
A great deal of human rights issues were addressed at the Council,
ranging from the rights of children and people with disabilities, to the
situation in North Korea, the Middle East and Somalia. All of these
issues were discussed in the plenary session of the Council and
in side meetings, where diplomats from different states debated
on and refined the wording of resolutions that would be passed at
the conclusion of the Council. I also very much enjoyed attending
the meetings put on by various NGOs. One of the best aspects of
attending the Human Rights Council is that there were seemingly
endless opportunities to attend talks put on by many prominent
speakers about a vast amount of different human rights issues.
Another aspect of the Council that I enjoyed is that it truly is an
international experience. It was incredible to look around the room
and to see faces of representatives from almost every country in the
world. Similarly, I really enjoyed living in Geneva, as it is also a very
international city. Whether at the UN or on my days off, I met many
interesting people from all around the world and this added to the
richness of the experience. The city itself is very quaint and beautiful
and the mountains surrounding it are spectacular.
Overall, I had an amazing experience. I would not have been able
to learn so much about so many human rights issues and to get an
insight into the intricacies of the UN without this opportunity.
November 2009
15
Rapporteur
Global Interns
An eyewitness to the bravery
of asylum-seekers
By Tania Marcello
Tania Marcello poses in front of United States Capitol Building during her time with Human Rights First in Washington DC
Every time I hear an asylum seeker’s story, I find myself
admiring the person’s bravery and reflecting on my own. Would
I sing a song praising the Dalai Lama even though I might be
beaten and thrown in jail? Would I endure the persecution
that comes from simply being a member of a particular ethnic
group? Would I do what I believed to be right or simply choose
the path of least resistance? The asylum process in countries
such as Australia and the US seems to overlook this courage
and treat the vulnerable with deep skepticism. Everyday, during
my time with the Refugee Protection Program at Human Rights
First, I was given the chance to engage with people who had
been subjected to horrific acts, fled everything that they ever
knew and were greeted in the US with a complicated and
arbitrary system, or even jail.
In addition to being involved with intakes, I also worked on various
other tasks including projects relating to the report on detention that
HRF released in April entitled U.S. Detention of Asylum Seekers:
Seeking Protection, Finding Prison. I also had the chance to visit an
immigration detention centre in Elizabeth, New Jersey, where I found
the conditions to be alarmingly prison-like. The detainees have to
wear prison uniforms and have regular headcounts, and can only visit
with their loved ones through a glass partition. It is hard to imagine
why such conditions are necessary for a non criminal population.
HRF’s pro-bono program partners with top law firms in New York
to provide free representation to asylum seekers at all stages of
the asylum process. My main role was to be involved with the
elaborate intake procedure. I would attend client interviews in which
we would hear the person’s entire life story and the persecution
that they endured. Their stories were always heartbreaking, and
often confronting. I would then draft a detailed report which would
include extensive country conditions research. This was always
very interesting work and allowed me to learn a lot about various
countries ranging from Iraq to Tibet and Cameroon. One day I would
be researching the treatment of Belorussian student activists and
the next I would find myself looking for details on a protest that took
place in Samarkand in 1992.
My time at HRF was always interesting, and I had the opportunity
to work with some very dedicated and remarkable people. I
was particularly lucky to be a part of HRF during the change in
administration. It was thrilling to get email updates with inside
information about the imminent closure of Guantanamo Bay,
and I was excited to see that a coalition of former Generals that
was brought together by HRF was standing behind Obama as he
signed the executive orders. I also had the chance to learn about
the operations side of an NGO by seeing the effect that the global
financial crisis is having on organisations, particularly in New York. On
the up side, the pro bono program has never had so much demand
for work from unoccupied corporate lawyers!
By being involved in cases that were at all stages of the asylum
process, I learnt a great deal about the US asylum system and was
interested to see how the process works without the tabloid fuelled
public hatred for asylum seekers that we have in Australia.
16
Newsletter of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law
I also spent time working at the Washington DC office of HRF, which
is located directly across the road from the Capitol building and the
Supreme Court! This gave me the opportunity to attend House and
Senate committee hearings during my lunch break, one of which
was chaired by John Kerry.
My time at HRF was an immensely rewarding and enriching
experience. I am very grateful to the Castan Centre and Monash
Law School for this opportunity, and a big thanks to Erica Contini and
Marius Smith for all of their support.
Dissecting the
commercialisation
of Indigenous land
Author and former native title lawyer David Ritter
explored the difficulties involved in the Australian
native title system in his public lecture given at the
Castan Centre in September. Ritter, who recently
released the book The Native Title Market, sought
to paint a realistic portrayal of the agreement and
negotiation process.
Ritter marvelled at how quickly things changed in
the 1990s. Before then, the concept of native title
often seemed naïve and unimaginable. For today’s
generation, it is difficult to conceive of a time before
Mabo, the landmark native title case run by Ron Castan
AM QC, after whom the Castan Centre is named.
Ritter suggested that Indigenous issues relating to
native title were at their most prominent in Australian
politics during the mid-1990s. However, since this
time such issues have taken a back seat as native
title has now settled into a system of negotiation and
agreement making. The objectives of this process are
to allow for successful agreements to be entered into
by all involved parties.
The Native Title Act, which was passed in 1993,
monetised the relationship between Indigenous
people and resource companies seeking to use the
land, according to Ritter. This meant that Indigenous
groups had the right to negotiate how their land
was used. Ritter describes this process as a “virtual
shopping centre in which miners, explorers and energy
companies purchase their permissions to go on native
title land from Indigenous groups acting as vendors”.
Ritter argues that, contrary to popular belief,
agreement making under the right to negotiate is not
particularly alternative; is unconcerned with principles
of compensation or interest satisfaction in a broader
sense; does not necessarily address Indigenous
disadvantage, is disconnected from reconciliation;
and rather than necessarily promoting community or
solidarity, may actually encourage greater atomization
and individualism within Aboriginal communities.
However, despite this Ritter maintained that his central
objective is not to condemn the native title system,
but to steer understanding and debate to the actual
process by which native title land is traded.
Six questions for:
Tania Penovic
What were you doing prior to coming to
Monash University?
I worked as a solicitor and yearned all the while to devote myself to
something I cared about more profoundly than the outcomes of the
commercial disputes I worked on.
What area of human rights law are you most
passionate about?
The conferral of hard rights on members of marginalised groups.
You teach torts law… do you find a significant cross-over
between torts and human rights law?
Yes. Human rights and tort law share some key objectives and in the
absence of a federal bill of rights, a number of victims of human rights
violations have addressed the wrongs done to them through torts such
as negligence and false imprisonment. Of course, these victories are hard
won and can only be enjoyed by those who have ridden the rollercoaster
of civil litigation (and usually the appeal process as well). As human rights
gain wider acceptance, hopefully with the boost offered by a federal bill of
rights, it is likely that tort law and the developing jurisprudence of human
rights will be mutually influential. Another important point that we can
take from the torts arena is that longstanding common law actions such
as negligence are built on notions such as ‘reasonable foreseeability’
and ‘harm’ which are no less vague than human rights norms which are
regularly mis-characterised as non-justiciable.
You have worked on a number of submissions to
government inquiries for the Castan Centre, which has
been the most rewarding for you to work on?
The Migration Amendment (Designated Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill 2006
sought to phase out the onshore component of Australia’s humanitarian
programme. All asylum seekers who reached (or tried to reach) Australia
by boat would have been processed in offshore centres such as Nauru.
Australia would have ceased to process boat arrivals irrespective of
circumstances like the danger they fled, their age or medical condition.
After providing a written submission to the Senate committee reviewing
the Bill, I appeared before the committee with my colleague Azadeh
Dastyari. We were thrilled when the committee recommended that the
Bill should not proceed and even more thrilled when it foundered in the
face of imminent defeat in the Senate.
What inspired your interest in human rights?
My maternal grandfather was disappeared as a young man in the former
Yugoslavia in the kind of circumstances that have occurred repeatedly
across the world and still occur today. When my grandmother’s life ended
14 years ago on the other side of the world, she died in ignorance as
to his fate and with the unrealistic hope that he might still be alive. My
cousins in Croatia tell similar stories about events which played out much
more recently. International human rights law and the related area of
international criminal law have offered a vocabulary for articulating why
this kind of situation is intolerable. The need to refine this vocabulary and
concomitant legal remedies continues to inspire me.
If you could give students one piece of advice,
what would that be?
Don’t forget that while following your dreams, you are more likely to
succeed with a solid grounding in the kinds of subjects that you might
not associate with human rights; constitutional and administrative law,
torts and even equity! It may sound dull but it will give you the most solid
grounding from which to develop your thinking about human rights!
November 2009
17
Rapporteur
Rapporteur
Q&A
What inspires or drives you
about human rights?
David Carolan: My inspiration derives
from the fact that although human dignity
is supposed to be a well established
concept, it is so commonly denied, even
in countries that claim to be the most
developed and forward thinking.
Romy Green: I have an innate sense
of justice, which funnily enough I
can’t place. I feel a connection to
marginalized groups, and a strong desire
to do what I can to make things easier
for them. I guess I’m just an idealist.
What past community-related
experience have you had?
Neda Monshat: I went to South Africa
as part of the Castan Centre Global
Internship Program to volunteer at an
Oxfam-affiliated NGO assisting refugees
and asylum-seekers. I have also
volunteered with World Youth International
in Kisumu, Kenya and at the Asylum
Seeker Resource Centre in Melbourne.
Namrata Kant: Over the 2008 summer
holidays I travelled to India and spent several
weeks teaching (as a volunteer) at a school
located in a slum area of Delhi. It is clichéd
but true to look back on it as a life-changing
experience. Since mid-2008 I have also
regularly been volunteering at the Sudanese
Australian Integrated Learning Program
and for the Community Visitors Scheme.
What did you do during
your internship?
Angus McLeod: I helped in the background
research for the Castan Centre’s submission
to the National Human Rights Consultation
for an Australian Human Rights Act, met
with the chair of the national consultation
Father Frank Brennan, and conducted
research into the problem of the registration
of indigenous births in Victoria.
Maida Kopac: Miscellaneous tasks, such
as the UNHCR decisions reports, research
for the submission to the National Human
Rights Committee, the report of the
violation of the basic rights of Indigenous
Victorians in remote communities under
the ICCPR... and many hours of research
involved therein in reading old documents.
What do you hope to
do in the future?
Helen Fabinyi: Pursue an active and varied
career in human rights – either through legal
or community development work – at a local
and international level. Pursue further study
at some point in human rights, Indigenous
law and/or International Development
David Sztrajt: Make a power point
presentation on Human Rights, turn it into
a movie and then win a Nobel Peace Prize
for my efforts (as if that would happen).
Publications and other activities by centre faculty members
Gideon Boas
Article
‘Trying Tyrants for Mass Atrocity’ (2009)
Alternative Law Journal
Erica Contini
Chapters
Submission
‘Forms of responsibility in International
Criminal Law – Some Problems and
Answers’ in Larissa van den Herik et al
(eds), Future Perspectives on International
Criminal Justice (Asser Press/Cambridge
University Press, 2009)
Submission to the Standing Committee
on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on the
Inquiry into Marriage Equality Amendment
Bill, (with P. Gerber, A. Sifris, and M. Smith),
August 2009
‘Review of Contempt and Misconduct
Proceedings’, in André Klip and Göran
Sluiter (eds), Annotated Leading Cases of
International Criminal Tribunals, Volume XXI
(Intersentia, 2009)
Melissa Castan
Book
Handbook for Interns: A guide to internships
at Native Title Representative Bodies,
Native Title Service Providers, Indigenous
corporations, government bodies,
community groups, not-for-profit, policy and
other Indigenous organisations, Carmen
Watts and Melissa Castan (eds) (The Aurora
Project 2009)
Grant
Monash Law Faculty Small Grant to work
on the issue of Birth Registration and
Indigenous People (with P. Gerber).
Paper
‘Human Rights and Indigenous Archives’
Research Forum, presented by the Centre
18
for Organisational and Social Informatics in
conjunction with the Centre for Australian
Indigenous Studies and Castan Centre for
Human Rights Law, 7 August 2009
Journal 158
‘Jack & Jill / Jack & Bill: The Case for SameSex Adoption’ (2009) 34(3) Alternative Law
Journal 168, (with A. Sifris)
Grant
Monash Law Faculty small grant to work
on the issue of Birth Registration and
Indigenous People, (with M. Castan)
Other
Julie Debeljak
‘If I were Attorney-General …’, Human Rights
Law Resource Centre Bulletin, June 2009
Grant
Paper
Awarded an Attorney-General’s Department
“Grants to Australian Organisations
Program 2009-2010” to run a Workshop
entitled “Legal and Criminal Justice
Responses to Trafficking in Persons in
Australia: Obstacles, Opportunities and
Best Practice”, 9 November 2009 (with S.
Kneebone)
‘Human Rights Education’, presented to the
United Nations Youth Association Conference,
University of Melbourne, April 2009
Submission
Submission to the National Consultation on
Human Rights, submitted to the National
Consultation on Human Rights Committee,
15 June 2009, 1-88
Paula Gerber
Article
‘Making Visible the Problem of Invisibility’
(2009) 83(10) Law Institute Journal 52
‘Making Indigenous Australians ‘Disappear’:
Problems arising from our Birth Registration
Systems’ (2009) 34(3) Alternative Law
Newsletter of the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law
‘Like Ripples from a Pebble someone
Tosses in a Stream: Using Human Rights
Education to Create a Human Rights
Culture’, presented at the Victorian Equal
Opportunity & Human Rights Commission
Conference, Melbourne, March 2009
Submission
Submission to the Standing Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Inquiry into
Marriage Equality Amendment Bill, (with
A. Sifris, M. Smith and E. Contini), August
2009.
Sarah Joseph
Article
‘Human Rights and the WTO: Issues for
the Pacific’, (3009) 20 Victoria University of
Wellington Law Review’, 351-367
Chapter
‘Trade and the Right to Health’ in Andrew
Clapham and Mary Robinson (eds) Realizing
the Right to Health (Swissbook, Geneva,
2009), 361-369
Papers
‘Human rights and Digital Story-telling’,
Australian Centre for the Moving Image,
Melbourne, 16 May 2009
Inaugural Human Rights Lecture, North
Queensland Law Association Conference,
Townsville, 29 May 2009
‘A Federal Bill of Rights’, District and
County Court Judges Conference, Sydney,
25 June 2009
‘International Human Rights Cases 20082009’, Castan Centre Annual Conference
’The Changing Human Rights Landscape’,
State Library of Victoria, 17 July 2009
‘Israel, the Occupied Territories and
Human Rights’, Australian Centre for Jewish
Civilisation, Monash University, 6 August 2009
South East Asia: Lessons for the Globe?’
presented to IASFM 12, Nicosia, Cyprus, 29
June 2009
‘Protection and Victims of Trafficking in the
Greater Mekong Sub-region’ presented to
IASFM 12, Nicosia, Cyprus, 30 June 2009
‘Refugee Futures: Perspectives from
South East Asia’ presented to the Refugee
Futures Conference, Prato, Italy, 10-12
September 2009
‘Refugees, Crime and Security: The
Trafficking-refugee nexus’ presented to the
Refugee Futures Conference, Prato, Italy,
10-12 September 2009
Submissions
Submission to the Legal and Constitutional
Affairs Committee on the Migration
Amendment (Immigration Detention
Reform) Bill 2009, (with T. Penovic, H.
Fabinyi and E. Moskovitch), August 2009
with Mental Illness’, (with Prasanna
Venkataraman), 31 August 2009
Maria O’Sullivan
Papers
‘Protection in the Context of Refugee
Status’, delivered at the International
Conference ‘Protecting People in Conflict
and Crisis: Responding to the Challenges
of a Changing World’, Refugee Studies
Centre, University of Oxford, 23 September
2009
‘The Cessation Provisions of the EU
Qualification Directive – Do they provide
protection against persecution or “effective
protection”?’, delivered at the Cuenca
Colloquium on International Refugee Law,
Spain, 1 October 2009
Tania Penovic
Paper
Submission to the Standing Committee
on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on
the Inquiry into the Australian Citizenship
Amendment (Citizenship Test Review and
Other Measures) Bill 2009, (with L. Healy
and M. Money), August 2009
‘Public International Law and Human Rights
in Australia’ presentation to Australian
Institute of International Affairs ACCESS
Youth Network Forum ‘Inside the World of
International Law, 30 September 2009
Evidence given to the Standing Committee
on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on
the Australian Citizenship Amendment
(Citizenship Test Review and Other
Measures) Bill 2009, 27 August 2009
Submission to the Legal and Constitutional
Affairs Committee on the Migration
Amendment (Immigration Detention
Reform) Bill 2009, (with S. Kneebone, H.
Fabinyi and E. Moskovitch), August 2009
Joanna Kyriakakis
Adiva Sifris
Susan Kneebone
Article
Article
Chapter
‘Australia and International Criminal Law:
The Responsibilities of Companies to Abide
by International Criminal Law’ (2009) 5(1)
Journal of International Peace Operations
29-30
‘The Legal Recognition of Lesbian-led
Families: Justifications for Change’ (2009)
21 Child and Family Law Quarterly 197-229
‘The Human Rights Council: Three Year
Report Card’, Lauterpacht Centre for
International Law, Cambridge University,
23 October 2009
Submission
Submission to the National Human Rights
Consultation, ‘A Federal Human Rights
Mechanism’, on behalf of the Castan
Centre, June 2009
‘Trois figures de la femme: actrice, victime
et refugie. Contribution au debat sur la
traite des personnes’ (‘The trafficking
dialogue: women as agents, victims and
refugees’) in F. Crepeau et al (eds) Les
migrations internationales contemporaines:
Une dynamique complexe au coeur de la
globalisation published (in French) by Les
Presses de l’Universite de Montreal (2009)
pp.39-69
Paper
Submission
‘Two by Two: Victoria’s Relationship
Register’ (2009) 83 Law Institute Journal
50-53, (with R. Sifris)
‘Mental Impairment as a Defence in
International Criminal Law’, presented at
the 24th IVR World Congress of Philosophy
of Law and Social Philosophy, China Law
Society, Beijing, 16 September 2009
‘Jack & Jill / Jack & Bill: The Case for SameSex Adoption’ (2009) 34(3) Alternative Law
Journal 168, (with P. Gerber)
Grant
Adam McBeth
Awarded an Attorney-General’s Department
“Grants to Australian Organisations Program
2009-2010” to run a Workshop entitled
“Legal and Criminal Justice Responses to
Trafficking in Persons in Australia: Obstacles,
Opportunities and Best Practice”, 9
November 2009 (with J. Debeljak)
Book
‘Lesbian Parenting in Australia: The Chicken
and Egg Dilemma of Legal Change’
presented at the 5th World Congress on
Family Law and Children’s Rights, Halifax,
Canada, 23-26 August 2009
Other
Review of Sara E Davies ‘Legitimising
Rejection: International Refugee Law
in South East Asia’ (Martinus Nijhoff
Publishers, 2008) (2009) (22 No 2) Journal
of Refugee Studies pp 243-245
Papers
‘Governance of Labour Migration in South
East Asia’, presented to 6th Asian Law
Institute Conference, University of Hong
Kong, 29 May 2009
‘Immigration Detention in Australia:
Success or Smokescreen?’, address to the
Immigration Legal Practitioners’ Association
(UK), London, 10 June 2009
‘Governance of Labour Migration in
International Economic Actors and Human
Rights (2009, Routledge) 364
Papers
‘Balancing Competing Rights under
the Victorian Charter’, presented to the
Law Institute of Victoria ‘Human Rights
Conference 2009’, 21 August 2009
‘A Bird’s Eye View of Lesbian Parenting
in Australia: Much Achieved but More to
Go’, Children and the Law: International
approaches to children and their
vulnerabilities, Prato, Italy, 7-10 September
2009
Bernadette McSherry
Submission
Article
Submission to the Standing Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs, ‘Inquiry into
Marriage Equality Amendment Bill’, (with
P. Gerber, M. Smith and E. Contini), August
2009
Paper
‘Mental Health Laws for Those “Compliant”
with Treatment’ (2009) 17(1) Journal of Law
and Medicine 16-21, (with D. Bruckard)
‘Without Sex: Slavery, Trafficking in Persons
and the Exploitation of Labour in Australia’
(2009) 34(1) Alternative Law Journal 4-10
(with M. Cullen)
Submission
Submission to the National Justice CEOs
Group, ‘Diversion and Support for People
Marius Smith
Submission
Submission to the Standing Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs, ‘Inquiry into
Marriage Equality Amendment Bill’, (with
P. Gerber, A. Sifris, and E. Contini), August
2009
November 2009
19
Rapporteur
Writing for
Human Rights
Essay competition – “Criminals don’t deserve
the same human rights as everyone else”
Have your say on human rights today
1st Prize: $1200 • 2nd Prize: $800 • 3rd Prize: $400 • School Prize: $2000
For information on the 2010 essay topic, competition guidelines and applications,
please go to www.law.monash.edu.au/castancentre/cc-human-writes
This competition is open to 2010 Victorian Year 10, 11 and 12 secondary school
students only. Closing date 22 March 2010.
This competition has been supported with a
General Grant from the Victoria Law Foundation
www.victorialaw.org.au
Contribute to the
Castan Centre
By donating to the Castan Centre, you can help ensure the
continued growth of the Asia-Pacific’s leading human rights law
organisation. The Centre is a non-partisan organization with a strong
commitment to community engagement, student development,
education and training and academic research.
The organisation hosts many of the world’s pre-eminent human
rights figures each year and creates pressure for the legal protection
of human rights through its engagement with the Australian
parliament and international human rights bodies.
Its commitment to nurturing the next generation of human rights
scholars has resulted in a strong and growing human rights
internship program which sends outstanding law students to some
of the world’s leading human rights institutions.
To make a tax-deductible donation, go to
www.law.monash.edu.au/castancentre
and click on “donate to the Castan Centre”,
or contact Kay Magnani on 9905 3327.
The Castan Centre was established by the Monash University Law
School in 2000 as an independent, non-profit organisation committed
to the protection and promotion of human rights.
Become a Member
To become a member, please visit our
website, www.law.monash.edu.au/
castancentre and click on the “become a
member” link. Membership is free and open
to everyone.
Through research and public education the Centre generates
innovative theoretical and practical approaches to understanding and
implementing international and domestic human rights law.
Update your contact details
Email: castan.centre@law.monash.edu.au
Telephone: + 61 3 9905 3327
Rappporteur is published bi-annually and is the official newsletter for
the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law.
The Castan Centre for Human Rights Law
Faculty of Law, Building 12
Monash University
Victoria 3800 Australia
t +61 3 9905 3327
f +61 3 9905 5305
www.law.monash.edu.au/castancentre